.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978
[act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as.....1. in this case timman, azmat and summan were charged before mr. thomas, magistrate of the first class, meerut, under section 60(a), excise act, for being in possession of cocaine. it appears that the police, having obtained a warrant for the search of a gaming house, carried out the search and these three accused were there discovered, and on being searched packets of cocaine were found upon them. it has not been disputed by the accused that the cocaine was found upon thorn, and indeed it would have been impossible for them to dispute this fact. the learned magistrate sentenced each of them to a fine of rs. 75. the local government filed an application in revision asking for the enhancement of the sentence.2. it is pressed on behalf of the opposite party that this is a case of first offence with regard to all three. we are of opinion that the section of the criminal procedure code dealing with first offenders should not be applied to the case of people discovered with cocaine and other dangerous drugs upon them in defiance of the excise act, it being almost certain that in all these cases the occasion on which they have been discovered in possession of cocaine is not really the first time they have been in such possession.3. we are satisfied that the sentence is totally inadequate, and we enhance it to one of six months' rigorous imprisonment each. the fine already imposed is to stand.